Second suit filed in Ruidoso police dispute

A long-time employee of the Ruidoso Police Department with extensive supervisory experience filed a lawsuit Thursday against the village, Village Manager Debi Lee and Police Chief Joe Magill.

Jonas Wade Proctor, represented by the Carrillo Law Firm, contends in the suit that the defendants violated the provisions of the New Mexico Whistleblower Protection Act when they removed the supervisory and management authority of Proctor, participated in improper reprimands and verbal counselings, failed to promote Proctor, failed to post a lieutenant position with the police department, appointed Lawrence Chavez to be interim lieutenant and reduced Proctor's salary, "all of which constitute retaliatory action within the meaning of the Whistleblower Protection Act."

Responding to a request for comment on the lawsuit, Stephen S. Shanor, attorney with the firm of Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin, L.L.P., which is representing the village, said officials there have not yet been served with the complaint.

"When the Village is served, we will analyze the complaint and respond according to the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure," Shanor said. "A complaint is only a set of allegations and contentions of one party, which are not necessarily the facts that will develop through the course of litigation. Other parties have the right to respond. The Village of Ruidoso is and remains committed to working with employees in an appropriate manner. As counsel, we believe that the evidence will show that the Village of Ruidoso has dealt with Officer Proctor in a reasonable and fair manner."

The suit filed in the 12th Judicial District states that Lee and Magill are unable to show that their actions against Proctor were sufficiently motivated by any misconduct or poor job performance of Proctor, or for any legitimate business purpose. They cannot show their "retaliatory actions against Proctor were unmotivated by retaliatory design," the suit states.

Damages claimed, the amount of which would be determined by an jury, include two times back pay, prospective loss of wages, compensatory damages for mental anguish and compensatory damages for emotional distress and anguish. Proctor also asks for reasonable attorney fees and court costs. Punitive damages are warranted because the village, Lee and Magill "acted with malice or with a wanton and willful disregard for the rights of Proctor," according to the suit. A jury trial is requested.

The suit stems from the handling of a March 2014 incident and associated report involving a public official as the victim and possible witness. The suit points out as a result of the dispute over the report, a policy was established regarding the safety of "high profile public officials," on Sept. 18, requiring a report be taken no matter how minor an incident may appear at the time.

Proctor became involved in the report incident, because he exercised a supervisory position over the reporting officer, who he contends properly handled the paperwork. But he specifically charges village officials with an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech when a directive was issued, constituting "an official village policy" not to discuss the incident, a policy that has not been rescinded. The suit contends village officials violated the Peace Officer's Employer-Employee Relations Act by not informing Proctor of the nature or existence of a supervisory investigation.

The suit also contends that Proctor was removed from an interim lieutenant position, because he "spoke on matters of public concern by communicating to village and others his good faith belief that the village, Lee and Magill engaged in unlawful and improper conduct...."

Proctor's lawsuit is the second filed by a police officer against the village, Lee and Magill connected to the March incident.